New SarahPAC video: “Game Change We Can Believe In”

posted at 7:10 pm on March 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

A nifty video snapshot of Palinmania circa September 2008, when McCain finally gave conservatives a reason to start caring about his candidacy. It’s all true — terrific convention speech, feverish grassroots excitement, a better-than-expected performance against Biden in the VP debate. I’m just not sure why SarahPAC felt obliged to put it out. For starters, it ends up being free publicity for the “Game Change” movie. Beyond that, do any of her critics dispute the points being made here? Does anyone, Steve Schmidt included, claim that she did poorly at the convention or that the surge in enthusiasm she generated among the base was phony? Back in 2010, amid accusing her of not knowing much about policy, he specifically said:

In her first major speech at the convention, Palin seemed perfect.

“She gave a great convention speech. And we came out of that convention ahead in the polls,” Schmidt recalled…

Schmidt says she was a quick study. “And her focus was extraordinary. She was working 15, 16 hours a day,” he said. “And we were pleased with the result. We were very pleased with the results.”…

“I believe, had she not been on the ticket, our margin of defeat would’ve been greater than it would’ve been otherwise,” Schmidt said.

Even her archnemesis admits that she helped the ticket on election day, which is the whole thrust of this clip. The fear, I guess, is that the movie will be such a hatchet job that it’ll dwell on the alleged gaps in her policy knowledge without balancing it by showing the excitement for her among conservatives. Could be, but the trailer does include the convention and more than one shot of Republican voters greeting her adoringly. Guess we’ll see.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Thank you. Yes, I did say undermine, but I’m assuming you’ll agree that has a significant difference in meaning than “damage”. I undermine my boss all the time, but I am not trying to damage him.
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Not really. If I were your boss and you were trying to undermine me you’d be looking for a new job.

If the GOP had any sense and understood the power to rally the base that Gov. Palin so effortlessly wields, they would have supported her after the 2008 election. Instead they allowed the left to paint a picture of her that was totally false. They would not come to her defense when it was obvious the media was trying to destroy her. She stood alone and fought her own party and the media with the help of conservatives who saw that the establishment was trying to marginalize her. The GOP had a star and they turned their back on her and have delivered the worst slate of candidates to come down the pike in many years. Which one of the guys running has the ability to draw the crowds and enthuse the base more than she does. What could have been an exciting and successful election season has turned into one long painful pathetic mind numbing exercise in futility.

You know it’s funny, her son is deploying to Afghanistan, and it’s not out of the question, that her youngest might be subject to the ‘death panels’ for practically every candidate, Obama’s defeat is a theoretical exercise, for her it’s very concrete indeed,

Ineresting how Gov. palin used the romneycare surrogates Nicole wallace, Steve Schmidt etcs. own words of how great she was at the convention to show the obvious dishonesty of them late in the campaign to now saying all these negative things about her.

Just like the romneycare cultist, as soon as Gov. palin is mentioned their venom comes out.

By the way, will romneycare enact legislation for mandatory 5 wives per guy. I mean he did enact mandatory HC.

If the GOP had any sense and understood the power to rally the base that Gov. Palin so effortlessly wields, they would have supported her after the 2008 election. Instead they allowed the left to paint a picture of her that was totally false. They would not come to her defense when it was obvious the media was trying to destroy her. She stood alone and fought her own party and the media with the help of conservatives who saw that the establishment was trying to marginalize her. The GOP had a star and they turned their back on her and have delivered the worst slate of candidates to come down the pike in many years. Which one of the guys running has the ability to draw the crowds and enthuse the base more than she does. What could have been an exciting and successful election season has turned into one long painful pathetic mind numbing exercise in futility.

JannyMc on March 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

GOP hates the base almost as much as liberals hate the republican base. The base it a threat against big government.

Well we know Wayne Berman, one of Romney’s bundlers was behind the
‘diva’ comment, as for other officials it’s hard to tell. Now if Couric had a halfway diligent researcher, she would have found the March 2008 NY Times Op ED, on the EPA’s polar bear designation, or
would have been familiar with her long time complaints about the Exxon Valdez case, but we know from the Daily Caller’s investigation
of the Journolist, that she had contempt for her, from word one,

GOP hates the base almost as much as liberals hate the republican base. The base it a threat against big government.

the_nile on March 1, 2012 at 9:29 PM

You’re right, of course. Makes you wonder why the base even bothers to support the establishment candidate, doesn’t it? Maybe that is why they are having such a problem selling their guy this time around. The base just won’t cave to their political genius.

GOP hates the base almost as much as liberals hate the republican base. The base it a threat against big government.

the_nile on March 1, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Ah, you get it. Romney and Obama: two sides of the same debased fiat coinage.

But with Romney we might get better judges, so it’s worth the drudge to the polls. The plutocratic, draft-evading, dog-torturing, phony s.o.b. isn’t getting one minute of my time this fall, though. It’s all downticket for me.

I’ll watch in sadness for what might have been as the A$$clown GOP gets its hat handed to it again. Totally avoidable. Mittens is a toxic clown who speaks to empty stadiums. And to top it off, ties his dadgum dog to the roof of his car and hoses off the dog as if that makes everything okay. This after Old Yeller soils himself because he was scared during the trip.

Jeebus, we’re totally f**ked, aren’t we? It’s as if Beelzebub came up from Hell and forced us to choose the most grabastically phony Cigar Store Indian to be our nominee.

All because the Establishment is bound and determined to stick Jeb in the White House in 2016. They don’t give a rat’s a$$ about Mittens. Only Good Republicans like Buy Danish think that the Establishment has any stock in the Toxic Clown. I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out that that whole Ford Field thing got set up by Karl himself.

2. damage, weaken, threaten, hurt, injure, impair, sap, put the kibosh on (informal), throw a spanner in the works of (Brit. informal) This will undermine their chances of success.
damage strengthen, reinforce, fortify, buttress

Nice try, but citing the thesaurus rather than the dictionary…referencing the secondary meaning, rather than the primary, is rather weak. Let me try copying the actual definition in your link:

1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.
2. To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one’s health.
3. To dig a mine or tunnel beneath.

Yes, Sarah Palin weakens or wears away the base or foundation of candidates, both by refusing to endorse them(a fact I know annoys Palin’s detractors), and by not falling in line with their narratives. I know, I know…how dare she??

Liberals have proven once again that they do not value truth. The liberal left distorts facts to fabricate its own version of history.

Their latest effort in storytelling is HBO’s movie, Game Change.

The screen writer of Game Change, Danny Strong, lapsed into a tired routine of manipulating facts and omitting key parts of Governor Palin’s story in order to push a biased agenda and drive ratings.

I urge all Palin supporters to cancel their subscription to HBO.

We have warned viewers of Game Change’s distortions–based upon the description and reports from people who have viewed the film, HBO must add a disclaimer that this movie is fiction.

For once I am thrilled to see Wallace and Schmidt in a Palin video. They are now trapped in the ‘Cuda cage’ and there is no way out. The “dummy” politician from Wasilla just slammed the door on their false narrative for good.

Ineresting how Gov. palin used the romneycare surrogates Nicole wallace, Steve Schmidt etcs. own words of how great she was at the convention to show the obvious dishonesty of them late in the campaign to now saying all these negative things about her.
Just like the romneycare cultist, as soon as Gov. palin is mentioned their venom comes out.
By the way, will romneycare enact legislation for mandatory 5 wives per guy. I mean he did enact mandatory HC.
Danielvito on March 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM

.
You sound just like a liberal when you get all wee weed up over the Rominator. Like Sarah, they both are free of the DC corruption that defines YOUR choice for more of the same crony BS.

I linked to the dictionary definition earlier! Please don’t pretend I’m being deceptive. It’s all about semantics – when you intentionally undermine something/someone you are at the very least trying to damage them.

Yes, Sarah Palin weakens or wears away the base or foundation of candidates, both by refusing to endorse them(a fact I know annoys Palin’s detractors), and by not falling in line with their narratives. I know, I know…how dare she??

Like I said, no discernible difference. Palin is undermining the candidates. I don’t care that she’s not endorsing them, I just don’t like her damaging them. It is also a fact she is actively pushing a brokered convention and has offered herself up as a potential candidate, so (here’s the opinion part) at the very least her motives are suspect.

I don’t care that she’s not endorsing them, I just don’t like her damaging them.

I damage them, as well. Do you dislike that?

It is also a fact she is actively pushing a brokered convention and has offered herself up as a potential candidate, so (here’s the opinion part) at the very least her motives are suspect.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 10:16 PM

If she doesn’t like any of the candidates, and think she’d be a better one, what’s wrong with supporting a brokered convention(which many others have done)? Additionally, when did she begin her 2012 presidential campaign?

For once I am thrilled to see Wallace and Schmidt in a Palin video. They are now trapped in the ‘Cuda cage’ and there is no way out. The “dummy” politician from Wasilla just slammed the door on their false narrative for good.

‘The Hunger Games’ that this primary season has become, is really the
worst possible way to select a candidate, starting with deferral to the MSM directed debates. It’s as if we learned nothing from the 2007-08 race.

If she doesn’t like any of the candidates, and think she’d be a better one, what’s wrong with supporting a brokered convention(which many others have done)? Additionally, when did she begin her 2012 presidential campaign?
MadisonConservative on March 1, 2012 at 10:23 PM

What’s wrong with that? RU serious? People get out there and bust their butts, raise and spend money, do everything they need to do to conduct a campaign while she hangs back and does nothing but, er, push for a brokered convention, sow doubt, and undermine the candidates – and you think that’s perfectly fine? She offered herself up as a candidate in the event of a brokered convention. I suppose one could say she began her campaign then.

Oops, missed this. I could not care less what you do. You’re not Sarah Palin.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Why is Sarah Palin a special case? Why isn’t she afforded the same privileges as a schmuck like me?

What’s wrong with that? RU serious? People get out there and bust their butts, raise and spend money, do everything they need to do to conduct a campaign while she hangs back and does nothing but, er, push for a brokered convention, sow doubt, and undermine the candidates – and you think that’s perfectly fine?

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Um, yes? You speak of her calling for a brokered convention as if it’s some kind of scandalous behavior, but news flash: the concept of a brokered convention exists for a reason, and that reason has become pretty evident this primary. What is wrong with her not liking any of the candidates, and wanting to see what many, many other conservatives like her want to see?

Um, yes? You speak of her calling for a brokered convention as if it’s some kind of scandalous behavior, but news flash: the concept of a brokered convention exists for a reason, and that reason has become pretty evident this primary. What is wrong with her not liking any of the candidates, and wanting to see what many, many other conservatives like her want to see?

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Palin has never called for a brokered convention. When asked about it, she said she didn’t think it would be a negative. She’s never brought it up. All she’s done was give a benign answer when asked about it. The only thing she’s called for is an honest primary process. She has spoken out against crowning a victor after 3-4 states. Who could reasonably disagree with that?

If the GOP had any sense and understood the power to rally the base that Gov. Palin so effortlessly wields, they would have supported her after the 2008 election. Instead they allowed the left to paint a picture of her that was totally false. They would not come to her defense when it was obvious the media was trying to destroy her. She stood alone and fought her own party and the media with the help of conservatives who saw that the establishment was trying to marginalize her. The GOP had a star and they turned their back on her and have delivered the worst slate of candidates to come down the pike in many years. Which one of the guys running has the ability to draw the crowds and enthuse the base more than she does. What could have been an exciting and successful election season has turned into one long painful pathetic mind numbing exercise in futility.

JannyMc on March 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM

GOP hates the base almost as much as liberals hate the republican base. The base it a threat against big government.

amazing isn’t it, the one and ONLY reason to be excited last election (as a conservative that didn’t want to see the country tank) was Palin, had moron McLame not suspended his campaign to run to DC to speak unintelligently on the bailout of wall st as some old dodering fool, he may not have squandered his 8 pt lead at the time (that Sarah gave him). BUT we are gonna back mittens, Mr obamacare himself, has anybody looked at the fiscal ratings of Palin and Romney when they were Gov’s, how about favorability ratings, not even close, mittens is the liberal he tries to hide, but we conservatives like to eat our own, unless they suck so bad its personnal, yeah mittens.

The GOP base wiped their feet all over Pain in 08 and I was in shock at what they did, I just couldn’t believe it. Once burn’t twice learnt. Our party is broken with the same old BS that broke it up in 08. The fresh meat the Tea Party sent to DC was surrounded and silenced. With 50% of the voting public on the government teat it’ll take an act of God to rescue our Country.

I’m sick of my only option being which establishment candidate can you stomach the most? How many times will we have to say “I don’t really like any of them, but…” and vote right down party line. I’m 29. I voted for the “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 because he was the republican. I defended the hell out of him and voted for him again in 2004, obviously, because he was the republican. Same in ’08. I naively wanted Romney, but voted McCain (like there is any difference) so I could help the team win.

I listened to Rush and Levin and Glenn. I watched Foxnews and only Foxnews, regularly. I’d brag about how “I don’t watch the mainstream media” unable to see the irony that Fox has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. I would go to Drudge multiple times daily and keep up with only the news cycle that he peddled. I was informed. I knew I was informed. Liberals know nothing, liberals hate and are destroying this country, liberals don’t care about patriotism OR the constitution OR freedom, blah, blah, blah. While that’s true, they don’t :D I was never looking at the other side of the same coin. Why hadn’t they informed me of the path of destruction, debt, and disregard for our Constitution that the “conservative” majority Congress and Bush had actively been undertaking for the last two decades? Why don’t they ever talk about how deficit spending really started under Reagan, ramped up with Clinton, and then exploded with Bush? And why wasn’t I smart enough to see through it?

The reason is that the “conservative” party was hijacked long before many of us were ever born and we’ve never gotten a chance to truly appreciate or learn about what REAL conservatism is. We get accustomed to getting our news from comfortable sources. Sources that reinforce our beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right. Here’s something everyone should know: Ron Paul is the last remnant of what, for the majority of our nation’s history, was considered conservative.

You hear Rush or Levin say “neo-cons” and immediately you think of the David Frums or David Brooks or Bill Kristols. But in reality, they don’t even realize that they should be looking in the mirror. It’s every program on Fox; it’s all the talk radio personalities “conservatives” adore as these brilliant beacons of truth and knowledge. Hannity is one of the most vocal with his, “I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative.” Whether its self-delusion or just ignorance, I couldn’t tell you. Do I think these guys lack intelligence? Absolutely not. They have accrued a lifetime of knowledge and on many subjects, they are spot on. The problem is that very often they are not right and their influence is so pervasive that many people blindly follow them regardless. Myself included for a long time.

My awakening came just last spring when I got into an argument over our foreign policy. I rattled off all the talking points I had come to know as truth. “The world needs us to keep them safe. They might act like they hate us, but we’ll see who they call when they need help. The terrorists attacked us for our freedom, our ideals, our culture, etc.” It wasn’t until I decided to open a book to better educate myself on why I believed, what I believed, that I realized how misinformed I had been. Have you ever said, “I like Ron Paul, except for his foreign policy?” I did too, frequently. If you ask the average GOP voter to describe RP’s foreign policy in one word the most frequent responses would be “crazy” “dangerous” or “isolationist.”

How could a guy so spot on about economic and domestic policy be so wrong on foreign policy? To better understand this I decided to read his book The Revolution: A Manifesto and got to see his views straight from his pen, without the bias.

Consider my amazement when he tried to defend his positions by quoting from the founding fathers: Washington, Jefferson, and Adams. Wait…what? That can’t be. These same founding fathers that we hold in such high esteem shared the same foreign policy views as “crazy, isolationist” Ron Paul? It couldn’t be, yet it was staring me right in the face. If you don’t believe me, look it up for yourself. I read on. He considered himself not an isolationist, but a noninterventionist. If you’re anything like I was, you’re probably thinking, what’s the difference?

Consider this quote:

“It is easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate how current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the twentieth century, from Korea to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.

Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the exact opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns.”

That was enlightening truth straight from the mind of Ron Paul. Have any of you ever heard his foreign policy presented like that? I hadn’t. If you have and still consider him nuts, than I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time and you can just quit reading because I doubt anything else I can say will sway you. When you understand that though and really think about it, it’s no wonder the soldiers overwhelmingly support him, receiving five times the military donations as every other candidate combined. Unlike EVERY OTHER candidate who are all bankrolled by giant corporations and Wall Street, Ron Paul’s top 3 donors come from individuals in the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. Maybe instead of throwing that yellow ribbon on the back of your car, you actually listen to and support the troops. You know those same troops who support Ron Paul. Its sad how those who rail on about the injustices and dangers of governmental intervention in our country, fail to even question when we pursue the same actions overseas.

After understanding his views and finding myself agreeing with them, I decided to consider the whole package. Here we have a candidate who went to Washington D.C. having already served a lifetime in the private sector as an OB/GYN. Spurred to action by a deep understanding of history, our Constitution and sound economic policy and foreseeing the dangers inherent in the direction the country was headed, set out to make a difference. His principles were grounded in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and knowledge of Austrian Economics. It’s easy to be consistent when you know what you believe in and have a framework on which you base your decisions, the Constitution. He never once voted to raise taxes, never once voted for an unbalanced budget, never once voted for anything he wasn’t expressly permitted to by his oath of office to that founding document.

There’s a reason he is never attacked on his record, it’s because they can’t. It’s flawless and purely consistent. There’s a reason he was the lone no vote in congress, over and over again, on bill after bill. He didn’t have the authority. Imagine how much integrity and personal courage it took to take that stand, time and time again, all the while knowing he was going to be labeled a kook or unpatriotic because of it. Imagine the patience of this man, surrounded by the cesspool of corrupt, ignorant, opportunists in politics only for the fame and fortune, shining the beacon of individual liberty and steadfastly moving onward converting followers’ one person at a time. They say that once you become a Ron Paul supporter, you’re a supporter for life. I believe that to be true. The message of true liberty, once understood, is too powerful.

It’s because of Dr. Ron Paul that for the first time in my life I’ve donated politically, volunteered for a campaign, sought to educate myself more fully on economics, history, the Constitution, the dangers of the Federal Reserve and interventionism (foreign and domestic) and why I believe what I believe. Finally, I’ve got a candidate that I want to vote for; I’m excited to vote for and will do what I can to inspire others to vote for. That’s why myself and millions like me will be voting for Ron Paul and no one else. The GOP can once again nominate whatever puppet, establishment candidate, they’d like. And when Obama wins re-election, you can all stand around scratching your heads and pondering why, but just remember that I tried to warn you.

*I did not write this but I felt it was a very good and wanted to share it.

I still have both Republicans and Democrats tell me Palin cost the McCain campaign votes, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It’s important to fight against those ideas if we don’t want the idiotic narrative of people like the Game Change producers to take hold as fact.

Yes, except we fought the territorial powers, France and Britain, when they kept getting in ‘our business’ as it were. Ron Paul thinks
the Civil War shouldn’t have been fought, well the 75 years of Jim Crow, put a lie to that,

Yes, except we fought the territorial powers, France and Britain, when they kept getting in ‘our business’ as it were. Ron Paul thinks
the Civil War shouldn’t have been fought, well the 75 years of Jim Crow, put a lie to that,

narciso on March 2, 2012 at 9:02 AM

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in the campaign for the United States Senate on September 18th of 1858.

Like I said, no discernible difference. Palin is undermining the candidates. I don’t care that she’s not endorsing them, I just don’t like her damaging them. It is also a fact she is actively pushing a brokered convention and has offered herself up as a potential candidate, so (here’s the opinion part) at the very least her motives are suspect.

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 10:16 PM

And this bit:

Why is Sarah Palin a special case? Why isn’t she afforded the same privileges as a schmuck like me?

What’s wrong with that? RU serious? People get out there and bust their butts, raise and spend money, do everything they need to do to conduct a campaign while she hangs back and does nothing but, er, push for a brokered convention, sow doubt, and undermine the candidates – and you think that’s perfectly fine?

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Um, yes? You speak of her calling for a brokered convention as if it’s some kind of scandalous behavior, but news flash: the concept of a brokered convention exists for a reason, and that reason has become pretty evident this primary. What is wrong with her not liking any of the candidates, and wanting to see what many, many other conservatives like her want to see?

MadisonConservative on March 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

MadCon, I think the true answer lies in a post of hers from last week. As we all know, BD has been one of those here leading the charge to undermine Sarah, ever since she resigned. She takes it so personally that I’ve been suspecting that it’s because she hitched her political career to Mittwit. And maybe even part of the so-called GOP elite. Here’s her money quote:

I’m not downplaying her intelligence (she’s street smart and wily). She is accomplished (although not to the degree her fans assert) but she is not a strategist. See 2010 for evidence of that. She does not have the resume’ of a Karl Rove or Michael Barone or Frank Luntz – any of the people who do this sort of analysis/strategizing for a living. Yet Fox is constantly asking her for advice, thoughts, and so forth on strategic questions. I get that she’s popular. She’s anti-establishment. She goes rogue. She’s a pit bull. Fine. Those are not the characteristics of an analyst/strategist and I wouldn’t hire her to run a major campaign. Would I like to have her join me on the stump? Absolutely. She’s a great campaigner. But that’s not what she’s doing for Fox…

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Soooo. You’re a politician, astro-turfing here as a concerned citizen and your ox is being gored by Sarah.

Bless your heart, you do realize that when the brokered convention happens, the GOP establishment brokers will have tipped their hand for all to see and thus the end of the GOP as we know it? Of course you do, yet for all your rantings, there doesn’t look like anything you can do to stop the train wreck except to goad/guilt the base into throwing in with Mittness.

But there’s still time to get off the tracks for you, but your status & ego probably won’t let you. Sucks to be you on the losing side.

Sound like a RINO with a vested interest in the GOP status quo and upset that if Sarah means what she says and somehow follows thru that their gravy train would be derailed. IOW, BD would welcome Sarah’s support, but don’t undermine her.

Why is Sarah Palin a special case? Why isn’t she afforded the same privileges as a schmuck like me?

Are you hoping to be chosen as the nominee? She is.

Um, yes? You speak of her calling for a brokered convention as if it’s some kind of scandalous behavior, but news flash: the concept of a brokered convention exists for a reason, and that reason has become pretty evident this primary. What is wrong with her not liking any of the candidates, and wanting to see what many, many other conservatives like her want to see?

What is it they want to see? Her to ride in on a white unicorn? She is being dishonest about this entire process. She makes the disingenuous claim we shouldn’t engage in friendly-fire, but she’s at the front-lines lobbying the spitballs. She claims it’s good for the candidates for this to drag on but that too is either disingenuous or lacking in common sense. It’s only good for her for this to continue. The candidates are managing to damage each other and go broke in the process. That is not the way to defeat the Occupier-in-Chief.

The topic came up again later in the conversation, when Bolling brought up the possibility of a brokered convention in August. “If it does get to that,” Bolling asked, “and someone said ‘Governor, would you be interested,’ would you be interested?” Palin began her answer asserting that she saw the possibility of a brokered convention as a very real one. “If it had to be kind of closed up today, the whole nominating process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention,” she responded, since “nobody is quite there yet.” If it came to a brokered convention, “all bets are off as to who it will be willing to offer themselves up in the name of service to their country.” She added only that she “would be willing to help any way that I can,” which is about as open a declaration of a brokered convention candidacy she could give– and, as is her wont, she elaborated no more than that.

+++

A brokered convention…like I’ve been saying, and like Palin has been saying.

I know Palin’s been saying it and I’ve told you why she wants it. Why anyone else would want it is beyond me, unless defeating Obama isn’t the goal and it’s all about promoting Sarah Palin.